The Instigator
DarthKirones
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dynamicduodebaters
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dynamicduodebaters
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,582 times Debate No: 84888
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (63)
Votes (1)

 

DarthKirones

Pro

NOTE: I am playing devils advocate for this. Just saying since many people will know that I am actually a filthy socialist.

Rules:
-1st Round: Acceptance
-2nd Round: 2 Opening Arguments
-3rd/4th Rounds: 2 New Arguments and Rebuttals
-5th Round: Rebuttal and Conclusion.

No Vulgarity, Insults, Trolling or Semantics.

Definitions:

Socialism: A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Capitalism: A way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

All Definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Website.

*Forgive me if it takes me some time to respond, as school is currently trying to suck my time away, so it may take me 1-2 days to respond.

-DarthKirones.
dynamicduodebaters

Con

I am happy to accept! I must say I am not playing devils advocate and I'm also a filthy socialist.... :)

Good luck Darth!
-DDD
Debate Round No. 1
DarthKirones

Pro

First, I would like to thank my old friend DDD for accepting this debate. Once again, I must apologize if it takes me some time to post.


Let’s get right to it.


Argument 1: Capitalism is a more realistic system.


Humanity as a whole is incredibly greedy. We are members of a species that wants to get as many materialistic goods as possible. This is natural. Capitalism, unlike socialism understands and accepts this. Capitalism is about the economic growth of each person, they have to work get keep their income and luxuries. If people are lazy, then they do not get as much, or none. Saying that a lazy person should have the same or greater importance and income as a hard-working man is simply unfair to hardworking men and women who grow the economy.


Instead of being frowned upon as with Socialism, greed is a motivation in capitalism for the lazy to work harder so they can make as much money. Socialism tries to sweep the greed under the rug, while Capitalism addresses it head-on.


I will not disagree that it is unfortunate that some people have to suffer, but isn’t it better to have a system where some prosper while others falter and fail? Or is it better to have a system where all do less than mediocre? Think that everyone would do well individually with a redistribution of wealth? Think again.


“Each person would get around $7500. But the cash only makes up for around 15% of M3; hence each person would get around $1000 in cash and the rest in savings accounts, certificates of deposits and other money instruments.” {1}


Seven-thousand five-hundred dollars per person. No family or even individual person can live on that amount of money. Capitalism is necessary in our society because redistribution just can’t work.


People rise, and people fall. That is how is has been and how it all ways will be. No one is inherently equal.


Argument 2: Capitalism has worked far more than any other economic system.


There may have not been a winner/loser in the cold war, but the USA emerged FAR stronger, while the Soviet Union collapsed


“ After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the newly-formed government developed a philosophy of socialism with the eventual and gradual transition to Communism. The state which the Bolsheviks created was intended to overcome national differences, and rather to create one monolithic state based on a centralized economical and political system. This state, which was built on a Communist ideology, was eventually transformed into a totalitarian state, in which the Communist leadership had complete control over the country.


However, this project of creating a unified, centralized socialist state proved problematic for several reasons ...Second, their economic planning failed to meet the needs of the State, which was caught up in a vicious arms race with the United States. This led to gradual economic decline, eventually necessitating the need for reform. Finally, the ideology of Communism, which the Soviet Government worked to instill in the hearts and minds of its population, never took firm root, and eventually lost whatever influence it had originally carried.

By the time of the 1985 rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader, the country was in a situation of severe stagnation, with deep economic and political problems which sorely needed to be addressed and overcome.” {2}


In the socialist state of the USSR, they simply could not keep up with the production of the capitalist west. People in control of the production simply works better as history has proven. Even today, the world’s most important socialist country, China is not even truly a socialist country anymore!


“There are definite class divisions here. Means of production are not collectivized. You have to pay for school...elementary school. Lots of people don't have health insurance. State owned enterprises do not distribute profits amongst the people. People work for wages. Private property exists.” {3}


This is how it is. A communist country with WAGES. With PRIVATE PROPERTY. How could a person say that socialism works when the one of the most important socialist countries in history is now increasingly capitalist, while the other important one doesn't even exist anymore?’


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry for the wait. I just had a final exam, and my everlasting-homework load continues to grow, plus extra-curricular activities… Anyways, I’m tired and I need to go and rest.


Looking forward to your argument.


DarthKirones.


(P.S. Please reserve your dialogue if capitalism is the natural order of things for the day time. I’m too lazy to edit my message and email settings, and I keep on getting emails in the night/early morning when I try to sleep. I appreciate the interest in the topic, but I already have to get up early in the morning.)


SOURCES:

{1}https://www.quora.com...

{2}http://www.coldwar.org...

(3)https://www.quora.com...

dynamicduodebaters

Con

Thank you Darth for your arguments. I too am extremely busy with school, so this round and round 3 might be a bit short. But if it is I will make it (hopefully) up in round 4 and 5.

And boy oh boy, I wish I could start the rebuttal round. Regardless, let"s get started!

Argument 1: Inequality

By far the biggest flaw in capitalism is inequality. In this system the more you work, the more you earn makes an incredible wealth gap.

According to BBC (1), "The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population." That is a ridiculous, but true fact, and is one because of the capitalistic society we live in today.

But that"s not all. 80% of THE WHOLE POPULATION lives on 10$ or less A DAY (2). Because of the "money first" mentality (see argument 2) in capitalism, it encourages private businesses to try to make the most money possible, not what is what is suitable for a 10$ a day income. But, with socialism, with a set income for everyone and suitable prices from the government, you will have enough money to live on comfortably.

If we had a socialist society, everyone would earn roughly the same amount. Even if this number is low (I think it was $7500 according to my opponent), that doesn"t matter. Why? Because maybe in capitalism anything under 10 000 is impossible to live on, but in a socialist society would BE ENOUGH.

If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on.

Argument 2: The "Money First" Mentality (Part 1: Inhumain)

In a capitalist society, as we see today, money is the biggest motivation. The problem with that is that it takes away from what should really be the motivation- helping. This is clearly shown in the example of Martin Shkreli (3).

He is the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, a company that makes HIV medicine. It used to be more affordable to everyone who needs them, especially in developing countries, at around 13.50$ Overnight, he raised this price to 750$ to make money. He took a product that was helping the world and ruined it, making sure absolutely no one who needed it could afford it, just for personal greed.

But that"s not all. It was brought to light that the same man also tried to raise money for kidney pills from 1.50$ to 30.00$ a pill, again wanting making sure that some people who were in dire these medications couldn't"t afford them.

There is a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system were the more money you make the better for you. People will want to make as much money for them, and be greedy, instead of thinking past their checkbooks and to the world.

With a socialist society, no one would want as much money as they can get. No one would be sacrificing saving lives for money.

I thank my opponent and I hand it over to him :).

-DDD

References:

http://www.bbc.com...
http://www.globalissues.org...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
DarthKirones

Pro

Sorry for cutting this one late. I had a busy Friday and Saturday.


Rebuttal:


By far the biggest flaw in capitalism is inequality. In this system the more you work, the more you earn makes an incredible wealth gap.


My opponent's argument is centered around the inequality that capitalism causes, yet Con fails to address the fact no matter the system, there will ALWAYS be inequality. Socialism is an idealist system, based on complete income equality, but I personally would argue that even with Socialism, the wealth would be quickly be seized by the government.


“Wealth had been held in the name of the state, but the USSR began to disintegrate, there was a frenzy to seize a share of that wealth before someone else stole it. Largely the members of the Communist Party seized the wealth.” {1}


The government seizing wealth for themselves. That is not very Socialist, now is it? How can you say that the wealth would be equal, when Socialist Countries decide that the money would be best in their pockets? That is not Socialism. That is CORRUPTION. A direct cause of Socialism.


But that's not all. 80% of THE WHOLE POPULATION lives on 10$ or less A DAY


Well, in first world countries, we have a significant portion of the total wealth in the world. Why? Capitalism. Yes, there is an income gap in the world, but could Socialism fix this? Could Socialism fix this? No. As stated before, Socialism leads to Governmental Corruption. The wealth would not belong to everyone, it would be in the hands of the government.


My point is that this wage gap likely will never be fixed. But a socialist society would never work! The income will ALWAYS stay with the government in Socialism.


“In a capitalist society, as we see today, money is the biggest motivation. The problem with that is that it takes away from what should really be the motivation- helping.


Ah, I see, so in a world where people are nasty and could screw me over at ANY moment, my main motivation should be to help other people over my family? This statement is flawed because many of us who work hard to earn our keep, should make other people a larger priority than my family? I am not saying that people should not be helped, but I am saying that each person's first priority should be themselves and their families, then other people.


This is clearly shown in the example of Martin Shkreli


Okay, I’m not going to justify this awful man. But I will point out that without capitalism, a MUCH cheaper competitor drug would not exist!


“Almost a month after word got out that drug-company CEO Martin Shkreli had jacked up the price of a critical drug by more than 5,000%, a different kind of pharma company has stepped up to provide a cheaper alternative. Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, a compounding pharmaceutical company, announced Thursday that it is now providing a customizable formulation to compete with Daraprim, a drug used to treat a parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis in people with compromised immune systems. Shkreli jacked up the cost of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 a pill seemingly overnight. Imprimis is charging $99 for a 100-pill bottle of the drug, or $0.99 a pill. “ {2}

The wonderful thing about capitalism is that actions like these allow for competition. So in a capitalist society, some people can STILL be interested in helping people! My opponent makes a large generalization, and overlooks the wonderful work done by rich capitalists! Look at Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, who is going to “give away 99% of their shares in Facebook to selected causes through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.” {3}


No one would be sacrificing saving lives for money


Except for the government. I don’t think my opponent has a realistic grasp on how people work. People will be greedy with socialism or without Socialism. There will ALWAYS be inequality. Capitalism is about turning this lemon into lemonade. So now I ask the audience. Would you prefer to have a system with lots of good and some bad, or a system that only has bad?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Argument 3: Capitalism is the more democratic system.


Democracy is about the people choosing what is best for them in the form of voting in their leaders to represent their interest. In the definition of Socialism, “Major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people” Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the government deciding what is the best for society is very Authoritarian? The government just says what industry they will focus on, even if the majority of people don’t support it. That is not democratic. That is a very totalitarian system, that gives the government way too much power. I will provide an example of a place we both live in.


“On Saturday, figures were released from a new poll by Mainstreet/Postmedia that show 60 per cent of Albertans are against Bill 6.” {4}


So even though here in Alberta, we are supposed to be in a democracy, where the people choose what they support, we have a government that does not even listen to it’s own citizens! Our socialist government does NOT support the interests of the people. The government just saying what is right, and what is not right goes against the very principles of democracy!


Capitalism on the other hand is a system where production is in control of the individual. The person gets to choose what they think is right, and allows them to prosper as a result.


Furthermore, I will go back to cite historical examples of government authoritarianism among socialist states. Modern examples would include China, Laos and North Korea. Past examples would include the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Libya, Egypt and Iraq {5}. All of these countries have/had a very authoritarian government, often with just one party in charge. A one party state is not democratic, but all of these governments tried to control production as well, so not only did they not grant their citizens civil and political powers, they also had no economic rights.


Another undemocratic thing caused by Socialism is that it destroys freedom of speech.


“Why is there ridiculous government propaganda in nations like North Korea? Why are most schools, papers, and colleges run by liberals in the United States? Why do liberals often try to disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses? Why are there such extreme speech codes in Canada that it practically makes some conservative arguments illegal? Why does speaking out against the government risk imprisonment in China and the old Soviet Union? Because socialism requires protection, propaganda, intimidation, and darkness to survive. Socialism can't survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation.” {6}


Need I continue?


Argument 4: Socialist Economies cannot compete with Capitalist Economies.


Due to constraints with the character limit, this will be a short argument.


We humans like to have more stuff. This is true. An example would be cell phones. With capitalism these phones are produced by us. With socialism, these commodities would be produced by the state or not produced at all. When the people produce the goods themselves, they are able to outpace the governments of socialist countries. This will cause the capitalist countries to have a better economy, and a freer, better society. This means that the socialist country may collapse (like the USSR) or have a much more mixed economy (like China.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, I apologize for the length of the previous argument. I am busy for the rest of today, and will likely have little-to-no time to work on it. I hope to expand on this argument in the next round!


Anyways, good luck on your argument.


DarthKirones.


Sources:

{1}:https://books.google.ca... Page 92

{2}http://www.businessinsider.com...

{3}https://en.wikipedia.org...

{4}http://globalnews.ca...

{5}https://en.wikipedia.org...

{6}http://townhall.com...

dynamicduodebaters

Con

Again, I thank Darth for his arguments. Judges, please don"t deduct points from spelling because of my apostrophes. All of them end up turning into quote signs for some reason. Also, I will most likely just refute my opponents R2 points, not his R3, for the sake of space and time.

"Humanity as a whole is incredibly greedy. We are members of a species that wants to get as many materialistic goods as possible. This is natural. Capitalism, unlike socialism understands and accepts this. Capitalism is about the economic growth of each person, they have to work get keep their income and luxuries. If people are lazy, then they do not get as much, or none. Saying that a lazy person should have the same or greater importance and income as a hard-working man is simply unfair to hardworking men and women who grow the economy." Okay I will break this down into a few parts.

Humanity as a whole is incredibly greedy. We are members of a species that wants to get as many materialistic goods as possible. This is natural. Capitalism, unlike socialism understands and accepts this. Capitalism is about the economic growth of each person, they have to work get keep their income and luxuries.

Yet this claimed "natural greed" has been festered and has grown. Because of this system of money and how the more money you make the better you are, people realize that this natural greed can be geared towards money. Yet in a socialist society, were it doesn"t matter how much money you make, there will be greed, but not towards money, because it isn"t something of value, or of as much worth in that society. So, in a sense, it"s not capitalism that fits the natural greed by gearing it towards money. It"s the greed that"s fitting the to capitalism because there is that something of value.

Also, this greed for money has been proven (see my R2 argument 2), to make people do completely inhumain and truly horrible things.

Just to throw this on, on the subject of greed. "For normal people it is anti-social and soul destroying, not to mention very bad for our communities, which rely on altruism, compassion and a generalized concern for others." (1)

(2) If people are lazy, then they do not get as much, or none. Saying that a lazy person should have the same or greater importance and income as a hard-working man is simply unfair to hardworking men and women who grow the economy.

In a socialist society, where money won"t be of value as much (because of everyone getting the same amount), these "hardworking men and women who grow the economy" will be acknowledged and rewarded in other ways than money.

My opponent also brings up the point about how the lazy will make as much as the hardworking. Yet would you not agree that even if they are lazy, they still deserve a chance, and that is what socialism gives them. It a capitalist society, if you are lazy, you will plummet to the bottom very quickly, and never be able to climb back up (see arg 4). Yet in a socialist society, it makes sure that even if you do slack off the tiniest bit, you get a second chance and can still function and still live like a normal person. Put simply, capitalism has no mercy, and socialism at least gives basic support.

Also, again as stated before, while these lazy people can still function in society, the hardworking people will still be rewarded in many other ways. Money isn"t the only reward in the whole world.

To continue. "Instead of being frowned upon as with Socialism, greed is a motivation in capitalism for the lazy to work harder so they can make as much money. Socialism tries to sweep the greed under the rug, while Capitalism addresses it head-on."

As stated before, greed is only festered and geared towards money with capitalism, because of the money-lust that goes on.

I will not disagree that it is unfortunate that some people have to suffer, but isn"t it better to have a system where some prosper while others falter and fail? Or is it better to have a system where all do less than mediocre? Think that everyone would do well individually with a redistribution of wealth? Think again.

Frankly, no it is not better to have a system were people who fall can"t have a chance of getting back to the top. Also, I don"t believe that socialism will make everyone do less than mediocre. My opponent hasn"t stated how. Can you, opponent, please address this in your next round so I can properly clash.

"Each person would get around $7500. But the cash only makes up for around 15% of M3; hence each person would get around $1000 in cash and the rest in savings accounts, certificates of deposits and other money instruments.
Seven-thousand five-hundred dollars per person. No family or even individual person can live on that amount of money. Capitalism is necessary in our society because redistribution just can"t work."

As stated in my R2 speech, "If we had a socialist society, everyone would earn roughly the same amount. Even if this number is low (I think it was $7500 according to my opponent), that doesn't matter. Why? Because maybe in capitalism anything under 10 000 is impossible to live on, but in a socialist society would BE ENOUGH. If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on." Anyways:

" Argument 2: Capitalism has worked far more than any other economic system.
For space, I will just write all my clashes here one the general idea of the point, without quoting specifics, since there are a lot of unnecessary details. Darth seems to like to make the whole point that the USSR could not keep up with other capitalist countries and failed to function. Yet ladies and gentlemen, that"s because that was one country in a world of capitalism. The same thing would happen if a capitalist society was formed in a world of socialism. It would falter simply because that"s not how the circumstances are at the time, not because it is particularly bad. It"s like saying that a dog would grow up perfectly in a world of only cats. It wouldn"t, for the previous reasons. Also, my opponent keeps on stating that the soviet union was communist. In fact he said that word 5 times. He said it transitioned from socialist to communist. So when it started to fail, it was when it was communist, not socialist. If we are debating a debate about capitalism vs communism, then sure bring it up. But we are NOT.

ARGUMENT 3: Advertisements { part 1}

Our capitalist world has turned into a world of people trying to manipulate your emotions, just to make more money.

Because people want more money, the advertise. The average person nowadays faces an average of 3000 ads a DAY. (2) This constant barrage of info is trying to change how we think and feel to make money. Don"t take my word for it. "emotional advertising is the best predictor of effective marketing and sales just about every time" (3) Marketers know this, and appeal to emotions to get these sales. There is a major flaw if people are manipulating someone's personal emotions for personal gain.

ARGUMENT 4 Cycle of poverty (part 1)

There is a real problem called cycle of poverty. It is when you are stuck in poor conditions and can"t get yourself out. Here is an example of the cycle of poverty: https://emilychocolate.files.wordpress.com...
The way to break this chain is to get rid of poverty in the first place. In a socialist society, poverty will not exist because of the fact that everyone will get the same sufficient wage, not some income, or lack thereof, that will define how your life and your children's will fare.

I am extremely sorry for the tiny arguments. I will greatly expand next round (ergo the part 1) May I suggest a change to the rules? You are allowed to post a google doc and have a max 15K character limit, to help both side finish rebuttals and arguments properly.

DDD

References:
1 http://www.counterpunch.org...
2 http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
3 http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 3
DarthKirones

Pro

Due to time constraints, I will spend all of round four with rebuttals. I will not object if my opponent wishes to do the same.


“This claimed ‘natural greed’ has been festered and has grown.”


My opponent makes a very ambitious and generalized claim here. Greed has always existed and it has always grown. No matter the economic system, or even social system. Greed will take many forms, sometimes it is about power, or land or money. As I stated before, it depends on how the system works to treat it. Socialist systems frown upon greed, while capitalism, as proven earlier turns this greed into good. Even in socialist states, people were still greedy. No matter what the system is, there will be greed.


“Greed is merely a human motive, but capitalism is an entire social system supported by a complex structure of laws, customs, and institutions. Moreover, greed is not unique to capitalism, but exists under both capitalism and socialism. The question is which system, capitalism or socialism, channels people’s greedy motives into activities that are more fair and just. In a brilliant intellectual breakthrough


Moving from capitalism to socialism does not abolish greed. Socialism merely empowers politicians, bureaucrats, and cronies to indulge their greed by restricting the useful activities of others” {1}

“There will be greed, but not towards money”


Yes there will. Just because there is a redistribution of wealth means that it will eliminate greed towards money. Thievery and robbery will still exist. Socialism does not destroy greed towards wealth, despite what my opponent said. My opponent provided no example of socialism working by eliminating materialistic greed. Why did he not provide an example? Because there isn’t any!


“Frankly, no it is not better to have a system were people who fall can't have a chance of getting back to the top.”


Why could they not get back to the top? If they work hard they can make it back to the top, but sitting around all day, watching TV and eating chips is not a good resume for getting a job. If this person instead works hard, and contributes to society, then they DESERVE to be at the top.


Also, I did explain how socialism would make everyone do “less than mediocre.” $7500 is not an amount that you can live life, and support a family on. Not to mention that the human population grows everyday, making that number even smaller. Could society undergo these change, say every year, to redistribute the wealth to the new population over and over? Could it?


“In a socialist society, where money won't be of value as much (because of everyone getting the same amount), these ‘hardworking men and women who grow the economy’ will be acknowledged and rewarded in other ways than money.”


How?


“The lazy will make as much as the hardworking. Yet would you not agree that even if they are lazy, they still deserve a chance, and that is what socialism gives them.”


Hold on, are you saying that a lazy person has as much value as a hard working man? Let’s say that there are two people. We will call them A and B. A is a hardworking man, that starts the day at 9 AM, and finishes work at 5 PM. He works hard to support his family and himself, and this job is very stressful, as he has to deal with mistakes that other people make. He works hard and always goes the few extra steps to make sure the job is done right. B is the opposite. He may work the same hours, but he slacks, doing the bare minimum when he could do more. He misses meetings and spends time he could be working by socializing instead. Yet A and B’s pay are equal. Is this fair?


“Capitalism has no mercy, and socialism at least gives basic support”


The world has no mercy. Capitalism or not, the world has always had no mercy, people are more than often cruel and unforgiving. But at least with Capitalism, many will have success. Socialism requires this massive change in society, but it also needs people mindsets to change, and as my opponent said, greed will still exist. But as proven, that greed will still apply to money. Can you simply make every single person selfless?


“If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on."


This is how economies fail. These type of price controls undermine the fundamentals of an economy which can lead to inflation, black market activities and a mass shortage of goods. Look at North Korea. Because they are a Socialist state, they have a mass shortage of goods, which lead to mass starvation and poverty, something that my opponent believes that socialism would fix (despite having no example to prove it.). Devaluing currency leads to all of these problems.


Furthermore, I feel like that simply saying that the government would give money to the people is an assumption. When the government controls the wealth, they may simply keep their money and not distribute it to the people.


“Darth seems to like to make the whole point that the USSR could not keep up with other capitalist countries and failed to function. Yet ladies and gentlemen, that's because that was one country in a world of capitalism. The same thing would happen if a capitalist society was formed in a world of socialism. It would falter simply because that's not how the circumstances are at the time, not because it is particularly bad.”


A) Prove it.

B) If socialism isn’t so “particularly bad”, then why isn’t it the dominant system in the world? Plus, the USSR was not the only communist/socialist country in the world at the the time. I already pointed out in Round 3 the amount of socialist nations before. Only three “communist” countries still exist, and one of them is not even truly communist anymore!


I will also add that all communists are socialists, so my historical examples are perfectly valid. My opponent strawmanned what I said, yet fails to realize that all communists are socialists.


“A way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property” {2}


That is the Merriam-Webster definition of Communism, not that much different from Socialism (as defined), now is it?


“Because people want more money, they advertise.”


So? This is simply a usage of freedom of speech by companies. I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying/expressing/showing what you want to sell. Is it annoying? Yes. But banning advertising would violate freedom of speech. Plus, it is up to the people to choose their reactions to these products.


“There is a real problem called cycle of poverty. It is when you are stuck in poor conditions and can"t get yourself out.”


As said, socialism brings everyone to the bottom, while at least with capitalism, people actually get to the top! Is the inequality sad? Yes, but would you be willing to give away money to strangers that you earned?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, on the google docs thing, while it would be nice to have the extra room, the rules have already been established.


Okay, I need to get a drink now. My head hurts from the typing.


DarthKirones.


Sources:

{1}http://www.governmentalwaysfails.com...

{2}http://www.merriam-webster.com...

dynamicduodebaters

Con

I will talk about my opponents clear breach of conduct in R5.

Clash for R3:

"My opponent's argument is centered around the inequality that capitalism causes, yet Con fails to address the fact no matter the system, there will ALWAYS be inequality."

Socialism at least tries to address problem, not dismiss it away as "it"s just part of the system." This effort is better than capitalism, where people don"t even try! How can you fix a problem if you don"t put any effort into it!

My opponent also brought up the USSR and how they supposedly were greedy when it all fell down, and it lead to corruption, etc. Yet he fails to realize that a) The USSR was a communist, NOT socialist country. (I will adress his rebuttal to this is R5), and fails to realize that not every system is perfect. In capitalism there are MANY examples of corruption. Read up on the link provided, but it basically explains 10 ways that a capitalist society, the US-freaking-A is the most corrupt country (1)

My opponent continued to now say that socialism couldn"t fix the wealth gap. Yet again, it"s whole fundamental part is giving everyone an equal income. And even if it doesn"t work to perfection, it will at least TRY. Trying will get you somewhere, not dismissing.

He then says that priorities should be themselves and their families. The flaw with that is that it motivates people like Martin Shkreli to "help themselves" before helping others. And we all see how that turned out (2).

After that he says that because of capitalism a cheaper drug was made. Let"s take a step back. If the whole greed thing never happened, the whole Martin Shkreli thing never happened, there would be no need to have a cheaper drug in the first place.

"People will be greedy with socialism or without Socialism."

As stated in my R3, this greed would be centered towards other things, not just money. It s the need for money that makes people greedy for it. If money wasn"t valuable, no one would use this "natural greed" with money.

"Would you prefer to have a system with lots of good and some bad, or a system that only has bad?"

My opponent clearly seems to support the latter.

Argument 3: Capitalism is the more democratic system.
In this argument my opponent starts off with a poor example of Alberta. A) He states that Alberta is socialist, but it is clearly not according to our definitions. Major industries are not owned by the gouvernement, it"s still owned by the people. Thus any problems with the people and the government is in a clearly capitalist province. B) It"s honestly the people"s fault. They elected who they wanted. They got what they elected.

Afterwords, he named multiple examples of a bunch of socialist places with one party. Yet he doesn"t seem to understand that there are many Capitalist places that are also Authoritarian. Armenia, Belarus, and many more countries (3) are examples that Capitalism doesn"t fix this problem either

"Argument 4: Socialist Economies cannot compete with Capitalist Economies."

Reader, switch the word Socialist with the word Capitalist and the same could be said. In a world with all apples, the orange would not work. That"s a fact of life. So it"s not a problem with Socialism, it"s a problem with surroundings.

Argument 5: Advertisements (part 2)

As stated last round, Advertisements use the lust for money to manipulate emotions, with 3000 ads thrown at them a day. Advertisers know this, and abuse this for the money.

But not only do they see this barrage, this attack, of ads, people are affected by them. 64.6% click on google ads (4). This goes to show just how effective these ads are.

Especially emotional advertising.
"broad emotional appeal will win out every time"
"Surely advertising cuts through the system to the brain"

These are quotes from Orlando Wood, an expert in marketing in advertising. He knows just how effective marketing with emotions really is.

Now before my opponent says that ads inform, and do not force people to click on them, let me just say this. They may not FORCE, but they influence, again clearly shown with that 64.6% percent. Also, okay, informing people of stuff on the market is fine, but when you overwhelm a people with neon signs and cheesy actors, it"s too much. Alos this so called "info" is not just stating, it"s persuading.

Let me frame this in a totally different way. Your brain is a puppet, movable, but with force. Advertisements are these fingers, slowly moving you away from your own opinions and towards a product. A product that you never needed until shoved in your face from these fingers. From these advertisements.

So readers, after all of this, you and I want a solution, no? Socialism. The lack of greed for money would mean a blissful lack of ads. A blissful lack of "Only 9.99". A blissful lack of your emotions being manipulated by people who you don"t know, for personal gain.

Argument 6: Cycle of poverty

One of the biggest problems in today's society is poverty. One of the worst solution is the common Capitalist mantra is that "you work hard you do well". So they assume that the easy fix is just to work hard. This is totally impossible because of the dubbed "cycle of poverty".

Now what does this mean? It is basically explained in these basic steps.

1: Low personal income
2: Lack of access to safe food and water.
3: Hunger and poor sanitation.
4: Disease and malnutrition
5: Depleted work force
6: Economic decline (6)
Then back to stage one.

This vicious cycle is exactly what happens today.

Let"s look at Desiree Metcalf. (7)

She"s been through a lot. As a kid, she grew up in a very poor state with little food and little happiness. She ran away, grew addictions, etc. She attended over TWENTY SIX schools. As she put it, "Seems I'd just get my bags unpacked and it was time to move again." She is now 24, with three kids, and is still having troubles with income.

"Like many before her, she carried her poverty into adulthood, doing odd jobs with periods of homelessness and hunger. But more disturbing is that poverty is now starting to take its toll on her children, especially her eldest daughter."

One of her children tried to run away at night.

Now before you say there are programs to help, they haven"t helped enough. Even though she gets 3000 dollars from the government, she still can"t live out of poverty.

In this example, it clearly shows how poverty can not only wreck your life, it can wreck generations of your family who simply can"t get out of this horrible cycle.

As NPR elegantly puts it "Desiree Metcalf's story is heartbreaking, but among the 46 million Americans who are poor today, her story is not unique."

Indeed it is not. Let"s look at Victoria Houser. (8)

She has it better than some, but still not great. She is stuck in affordable housing with a baby son at only 22 years old.

"It's kind of not a very safe place to live,"

"There've been quite a few drug busts here"

Both quotes are from Victoria herself.

"Her next-door neighbor was recently arrested for allegedly murdering someone and stuffing the body in a cupboard."

Now how is this different from normal poverty? How is this a cycle?

"Poor to me is the fact that I'm working my butt off. I'm trying to go to school. I'm trying to take care of my son, and that's just not enough,"

She feels like one small thing could send her whole life crumbling down.

This is the cycle. The cycle of once you lose, you are never going to get back up and brush yourself off again.

How does socialism fix this? Everyone will get the same income, thus no poverty. No poverty means no poverty cycle.

-DDD

References:
1(http://www.juancole.com...)
2(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)
3(https://www.google.ca...)
4(http://www.wordstream.com...)
5(http://www.businessinsider.com...)
6(https://emilychocolate.files.wordpress.com...)
7(http://www.npr.org...)
8(http://www.npr.org...)
Debate Round No. 4
DarthKirones

Pro

I would like to thank the readers of this debate. It has been a difficult one to write, and I would also like to thank Con for his patience, as school has been limiting my writing time.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Socialism at least tries to address problem, not dismiss it away as ‘it’s just part of the system.’”


BUT it is part of the system! Name one period of time in human history where there was no poverty or greed. These things have always and will always exist no matter what. Yes, socialism tries to address the problem, but there is a difference in addressing a problem and solving it. Socialism does not fix the problem. Capitalism is a system that tries not to destroy the problem and be unrealistic, but rather ease the problem. You can’t destroy greed. You can’t destroy poverty, but you can react to it. That is why capitalism, among other reasons, is better.


“My opponent also brought up the USSR and how they supposedly were greedy when it all fell down, and it lead to corruption, etc. Yet he fails to realize that a) The USSR was a communist, NOT socialist country.”


All communists are socialists! The ideal socialist state is also the ideal communist state! By definition, all communists are also socialist. I ask my opponent to explain why a socialist but not a communist state is ideal.


“fails to realize that not every system is perfect”


I never called capitalism perfect. But, considering the historical proof and examples I have provided, history shows that capitalism has worked better than any other system, while socialism has NEVER worked.


“10 ways that a capitalist society, the US-freaking-A is the most corrupt country “


Ah, I also never called capitalism a corruption-free system. But capitalism is a much freer system. In the US, they have freedom of speech, press, religion among other freedoms. {1} The USSR, China and North Korea (among other countries.) have/had none of these freedoms. Is the US as free as they say they are? Not necessarily, but a single party, totalitarian countries with no freedom of speech and press like North Korea is less corrupt? Really?


“Let's take a step back. If the whole greed thing never happened, the whole Martin Shkreli thing never happened, there would be no need to have a cheaper drug in the first place.”


But greed has always existed. As stated before, greed exists outside economics, It can’t be directed and it can’t be controlled. Greed is at fault, but saying that it can be eliminated is unrealistic. And despite what my opponent says, Socialism will not get rid of greed toward money! I am sure that the people who’s money is redistributed will want their money back.


“My opponent clearly seems to support the latter.”


Yup.


“In this argument my opponent starts off with a poor example of Alberta. A) He states that Alberta is socialist, but it is clearly not according to our definitions. “


The Albertan government is run by the New Democratic Party, a SOCIALIST party.


“It’s honestly the people’s fault. They elected who they wanted. They got what they elected.”


Kind of like how the German population elected Hitler. They must have also got what they elected.


“Afterwords, he named multiple examples of a bunch of socialist places with one party. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that there are many Capitalist places that are also Authoritarian.”


True. Belarus and Armenia are authoritarian. But name ONE socialist society that is/was not authoritarian. And they have to actually be Socialist, not just in name. I can’t. Socialism and Communism have bred nothing but authoritarian states, with corruption and totalitarianism. Socialism has no sample to prove why it is democratic.


I will also note that my opponent never actually pointed out any reasons why Socialism is the more democratic system/why Capitalism is not a democratic system. He simply tried to point out flaws in my examples.


“Reader, switch the word Socialist with the word Capitalist and the same could be said. In a world with all apples, the orange would not work. That"s a fact of life. So it’s not a problem with Socialism, it’s a problem with surroundings.”


I personally think that this statement is a False Cause logical fallacy. {2} It seems like you are saying that:

  1. Socialism was not as common as Capitalism at the time.

  2. The Socialist Countries lost the cold war.

  3. Therefore, the Socialist Countries lost the cold war because Socialism was less popular amongst countries.


So this “Fact of life” is based around a logical fallacy. Okay then.


“As stated last round, Advertisements use the lust for money to manipulate emotions, with 3000 ads thrown at them a day. Advertisers know this, and abuse this for the money. But not only do they see this barrage, this attack, of ads, people are affected by them. 64.6% click on google ads. This goes to show just how effective these ads are.”


And that is their choice. This once again, is important to democracy. No one is forcing them to click on these ads. Would you punish a priest for encouraging (but not forcing) a person to convert to Christianity? Are these people being influenced? Yes, but the CEO of the company that created the ad is not holding the person behind the screen at gunpoint.


I will also point out that you are criticizing a system about influencing people, yet the entire idea of Socialism is about influencing people, while Capitalism and the Free Market is a much more free system. How can you even talk about capitalism controls people’s freedoms, when Socialism would do the same thing!


“One of the biggest problems in today's society is poverty. One of the worst solution is the common Capitalist mantra is that ‘you work hard you do well’. So they assume that the easy fix is just to work hard. This is totally impossible because of the dubbed ‘cycle of poverty.’”


Socialism has created nothing but misery in the world. Capitalism has created wealth worldwide more than any other system in the world. Is there poverty in our society? Yes. But there is always has been. Besides, how can socialism fix poverty? My opponent may say that this will be done by a mass redistribution of wealth. But the actual process of this redistribution has not been explained by opponent. This redistribution will not just happen. It will not happen overnight. It is far too ambitious and unrealistic. To help support my case, I will present two quotes from two separate countries.


“Socialism will never end poverty. It will never ‘level the playing field’, and it will kill personal incentive. First, before I am accused as being uncompassionate, I want to mention that 14 years ago, I was on food-stamps and welfare. This was due to a life changing accident… Anyway, I have personal, first hand knowledge of what it’s like to be a welfare recipient. I also have knowledge of dealing with the bureaucracy of those federal and state agencies, as well as the attitudes of my fellow recipients. I will tell you upfront, it sucked, and I couldn’t wait to get the hell off these services and to get some dignity back. But I was an exception. Many have no intention of every getting off these entitlements. The redistribution of wealth through entitled programs can never equate to a prosperous society. Incentives are great motivators, free stuff is not. Thomas Edison said: ‘Restlessness and discontent are the first necessities of progress.’

I believe I used the system as it was intended: to give TEMPORARY assistance to those who need help getting on their feet. That being said, I have never been back on it. I went back to college, own a business and became a landlord.” {3}


“Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It's almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as Winston Churchill once noted, ‘The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.’” {4}


I now call upon my opponent to explain to all of us how Socialism will be able to create a proper system that will get rid of economic inequality.


IN CONCLUSION…

  • My opponent has strawmanned my arguments multiple times, misinterpreting my arguments on more than one occasion during this debate.

  • My opponent has not been able to provide any historical example of Socialism working, proving that Socialism is a mere Ideal.

  • My opponent failed to prove how Socialism can work, simply stating would SHOULD be done, not what COULD be done.

  • I have proven that Capitalism is the more realistic, sustainable and overall superior system to Socialism with historical examples to help me.


Socialism just can’t work.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaaaaaaaand done.


What a fun debate. Win or lose, this debate certainly is the highlight of my debating history on this site. As a die-hard socialist, it was interesting to look through the other side.


I would like to thank my old friend DDD for being such a worthy opponent. I once more appreciate his patience.


Yours Truly,


DarthKirones.


Sources:

{1}http://www.newsoptimist.ca...

{2}https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

{3}http://www.redstate.com...

{4}http://townhall.com...

dynamicduodebaters

Con

I love this format. I am able to refute R4 and R5 of my opponents. So let"s get right to it.

" I will spend all of round four with rebuttals" According to the rules my OPPONENT himself brought up, R4 is for "2 New Arguments and Rebuttals." My opponent clearly breaks conduct by not posting ANY arguments R4. Conduct point, please.

He continues on by repeating that greed will take many forms, and that socialism frowns upon it. Socialism frowns upon greed with MONEY, not greed itself. And yes, it will take many forms, as stated before. It will not shame these forms, it will stay with the oh-so "natural" greed and just use it it DIFFERENT WAYS.

"My opponent provided no example of socialism working by eliminating materialistic greed. Why did he not provide an example? Because there isn"t any!" You are right. Thanks, Darth for actually stating my point. Socialism won"t get rid of all materialistic greed, just towards money. Thank you!

"Thievery and robbery will still exist." But without this greed GEARED towards money, no it won"t! Who wants money when it"s not important!

"Why could they not get back to the top? If this person instead works hard, and contributes to society, then they DESERVE to be at the top." Please look at my whole argument in R4. It clearly states how, with real life example, why not. And yes, that second statement is true. They DESERVE to. But can they? Absolutely not. (see R4).

"Also, I did explain how socialism would make everyone do "less than mediocre." $7500 is not an amount that you can live life, and support a family on." Let me AGAIN state why this is false. In a socialist country, 7500 would be more than enough for everyone to live on, as stated in R3. For example, cuba IN REAL LIFE. (3) To compensate for "low salaries" they have "state-run economy, a national health-care program, government-paid (i.e. free) education at all levels, subsidized housing, utilities, entertainment and even subsidized food programs."

"How?" IN regards to how they could be rewarded. Hmmm, let me quote YOU, Darth. "power, or land or money." Another thanks!

"Hold on, are you saying that a lazy person has as much value as a hard working man?"
My opponent took my words, twisted them into something that is NOT what I am saying and tried to appeal to you. It clearly stated that I think they deserve a second chance, not push them down and never give them another chance, like in the case of these two poor women that I stated in R4. (1) (2)

"The world has no mercy." "Can you simply make every single person selfless?" What Darth seems to assume is that not trying will try to help. He thinks that with capitalism, just giving up on major problems with society will SOMEHOW help. At least socialism puts in the effort, takes a step in the right direction, to make the world a better world.

My opponent continues to talk about North Korea, yet they have the resources, it"s just not managed properly. Also they are a communist country which is different than socialist, shown later in my rebuttal. He ask for examples continuously. Here"s one! (3) Cuba, a very successful SOCIALIST country. They are functioning perfectly, and have used 80% of businesses owned by gouvernement. This government is running just fine.

"Furthermore, I feel like that simply saying that the government would give money to the people is an assumption." May I suggest reading article (3). No assumptions there, bud.

"Prove it." Okay. Would a chair work in a world of tables. Would a man work in a world of all women. OF COURSE NOT. Plus, the USSR was not the only communist/socialist country in the world at the the time. I already pointed out in Round 3 the amount of socialist nations before. Only three "communist" countries still exist, and one of them is not even truly communist anymore!" Cool story bro. First, USSR was communist, not capitalist. That again will be addressed later. Keep reading!

"I will also add that all communists are socialists, so my historical examples are perfectly valid. My opponent strawmanned what I said, yet fails to realize that all communists are socialists." Here are the differences:

"It does not favor violent aggression or overthrowing of capitalists by workers.
It does not advocate that all private property ownership be eliminated, rather that the gap should be narrowed down, preventing accumulation." (3) ALL OF MY OPPONENTS EXAMPLES THAT USE USSR OR NORTH KOREA ARE INVALID, since they are COMMUNIST, not SOCIALIST.

"But banning advertising would violate freedom of speech. Plus, it is up to the people to choose their reactions to these products." Yet how come they become greatly influenced? Also, I"m not saying they would be banned. I'm just saying there would be no use for them anymore. No violations there!

"As said, socialism brings everyone to the bottom, while at least with capitalism, people actually get to the top! Is the inequality sad? Yes, but would you be willing to give away money to strangers that you earned?" At least with capitalism, people who falter once can never get back up. At least with capitalism the top 62 people in the world have more money than 3.5 billion people! (4) Point made.

"Capitalism is a system that tries not to destroy the problem and be unrealistic, but rather ease the problem. You can"t destroy greed." First, HOW does it help "ease the problem." Second, as stated before, Socialism doesn"t destroy greed, it channels it.

"You can"t destroy poverty, but you can react to it." React to it by making sure innocent people can"t have a normal life EVER again, including children generations down the line? Wrong reaction my friend. THAT is capitalism.

"ll communists are socialists! The ideal socialist state is also the ideal communist state! By definition, all communists are also socialist." Already addressed this previously.

"I never called capitalism perfect. But, considering the historical proof and examples I have provided, history shows that capitalism has worked better than any other system, while socialism has NEVER worked." Examples? USSR and North Korea? Oh wait, those are invalid. Never worked? What about CUBA!

"The USSR, China and North Korea" All invalid, including China. China is run by the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA. (5) "I am sure that the people who"s money is redistributed will want their money back." Not if money ISN"T a valuable resource!

"The Albertan government is run by the New Democratic Party, a SOCIALIST party." Yet all the major companies are run by private businesses. I live here, trust me, I know. Also everyone gets different wages. Again, capitalist, not socialist. "Kind of like how the German population elected Hitler. They must have also got what they elected." Never, ever compare Alberta to Hitler. They changed on the germans RIDICULOUSLY from their original point of view, the NDP barely.

"But name ONE socialist society that is/was not authoritarian." Cuba! "why Capitalism is not a democratic system." Okay!, A plutocracy is defined as "the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy."(6) A democracy is defined as "a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges." (7) Seems like plutocracy is more the definition of capitalism.

My opponent says that it"s the logical fallacy of false cause, yet it"s no correlation. It"s common sense. He goes on to say it"s their choice. It is, but he doesn"t deny the fact that it"s a great influenced, as I have proven with FACTS in R4. "the entire idea of Socialism is about influencing people." How? My opponent has not given a single example.

"But the actual process of this redistribution has not been explained by opponent." Sure!

Step 1: Collection of wealth from the rich until all is on equal level.
Step 2: Distributed equally among people.
Step 3: Ta-freakin"-Da.
His first quote was very confusing. I feel bad for this guy though. Food stamps? Poverty? Okay I am so sorry. Oh wait, that"s an example of Poverty? Written by a man who runs the Radio show that"s hosted in TEXAS (8) (9), a clearly capitalist state. Your quote proves that poverty sucks, especially because it"s from a capitalist state.

Next quote. It basically states how socialism gives a second chance to people who were lazy ONCE. Who messed up ONCE! How lovely of you Darth. Also, let me quote THAT EXACT QUOTE that my opponent brought up! "insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle."

"I now call upon my opponent to explain to all of us how Socialism will be able to create a proper system that will get rid of economic inequality." Um, are you kidding me. That"s exactly what I"ve been doing this whole debate! Opposite of inequality is equality. Thus opposite of economic inequality is economic equality. Thus, economic equality IS Equal pay.

IN CONCLUSION:
I have refuted EVERY SINGLE refutation my opponent has brought up, INCLUDING his final remarks, thus upholding ALL of my points.
-I have brought up examples when asked.
-I have shown you how examples my opponent has brought up are INVALID.

For the fact that all my point STILL stand, and all my opponents have fallen (including all rebuttals) VOTE CON.

With literally 7 characters remaining, I thank Darth for a good debate.

References:
1)http://www.npr.org...
2)http://www.npr.org...
3)http://www.investopedia.com...
4)http://www.theguardian.com...
5)https://en.wikipedia.org...
6)http://dictionary.reference.com...
7)http://dictionary.reference.com...
8)https://twitter.com...
9)http://www.redstate.com...
Debate Round No. 5
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
IN CONCLUSION:
DK grasps the key concepts of Free Will, and hard-workers getting the same unjustifiable amount of money as the poor, both unrefuted, as well as giving examples of failing communist societies. Despite such, DDD twisted communists and socialists around, with an unrefuted definition and giving examples of people failing to get back up due to the nature of capitalism. DK failed to address the key argument that the main issue with socialism is the lack of motivation, thus an unproductive society, and in addition, fails to justify communism and socialism are the same thing, merely stating that they are, without any solid backing. DDD is the winner, and the first ever to beat DK. Good job.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 7
LAST PART.
---" I will spend all of round four with rebuttals" According to the rules my OPPONENT himself brought up, R4 is for "2 New Arguments and Rebuttals." My opponent clearly breaks conduct by not posting ANY arguments R4. Conduct point, please.
Very well then.

DDD stresses that socialism gets rid of greed toward money.. makes sense and isn't defeated before.
Notes that DK never refuted his evidence that the people couldn't get back "up there" after falling. DDD once more states that the governments have "state-run economy, a national health-care program, government-paid (i.e. free) education at all levels, subsidized housing, utilities, entertainment and even subsidized food programs." Yet he completely fails to address the corruption issue, dropping it here and now.
DDD also notes that lazy man deserves second chance--but does NOT address that the lazy man DOES indeed get as much as the hard-working man, which is unjustifiable.
DDD notes again the DK failed to address his definitions of socialism versus communism. He then comes up with Cuba the socialist country. I won't count it because it's the last round.
DDD uses generalization to try proving that one of a kind in many other kind won't work. Hmmm. Okay. Then he continues again by saying USSR =communist and not capitalist. Typo?
DDD then twists DK by noting the key difference between communism and socialism. [but uses an extremely vague quote].
DDD asks how people become influenced. Does not address the free will argument.
Basically repeats his arguments about how with poor people they will not get back up again.
Names Cuba again. I will ignore.
Explains redistribution. Hm. Okay.
"With literally 7 characters remaining, I thank Darth for a good debate."
Ha, okay.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 6
Whooo--eeeee! Last round!
DK notes the crucial fact that socialism didn't fix the problem while capitalism "eased the problem", which logically makes sense.
DK repeats that "All communists are socialists! " but does not address why " By definition, all communists are also socialist.", especially through DDD's definitions in the previous round.
Further addresses that capitalism is more free (but does NOT address emotional manipulation).
Repeats that Socialism won't get rid of greed, especially with the people's money that is redistributed.
--"My opponent clearly seems to support the latter."

---Yup.
Not sure why he does this. Waste of space.
DK states that people got what they elected; then moves onto that all socialists were authoritarian, and also notes that DDD only refuted and never supported Socialism's democracy. (How clever!)
DK notes the false cause with "problem with surroundings". Well done, well done.
Ah, he finally reaches to the emotional manipulation. Points out that NOTHING is forced, compared to the forced actions of socialist governments (yet again, unaddressed by DDD)
DK presents two quotes from two countries, from Thomas Edison--"free stuff cannot motivate" and Winston Churchill-- "benefits the few at expense of many" (LOL isn't this capitalism XD)....
Concludes that DDD strawmanned (possibly partially true), hasn't proved socialism to work, and finally states that he proved capitalism more realistic and sustainable.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 5
DDD notes that socialism tries to fix inequality while capitalism does not. Continues with the fact that USSR is communist and NOT socialist. He also tells us to read a link on why USA is the most corrupt, but we're not gonna do that because DDD=/= that link.
DDD highlights the crucial point that "If money wasn"t valuable, no one would use this "natural greed" with money."
DDD notes that Alberta doesn't work due to people owning it, and also with capitalist societies that are authoritarian. Also attributes that "it's a problem with surroundings", but never supports this.
Strengthens his "emotionally manipulating ads" arguments. Finally concludes with the cycle of poverty, supporting it further with Desiree Metcalf and Victoria Houser.
HOWEVER he has STILL failed to address the fact that North Korea has terrible conditions as well. We'll see who wins in the final round.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 4
DK notes the over-generalization of DDD's greed argument, and once more states that socialism doesn't fix the greed; further strengthening his political corruption argument already stated.
DK also notes the crucial lack of evidence of the bone for DDD's argument--he never supported that the poor could NOT get back up!
DK continues stressing that 7500$ is not enough, completely ignoring the argument that government could control prices and thus make 7500$ be enough.
DK also uses an anecdote, using emotion and logic to persuade us that it is unfair for a hard-working man to earn the same as a lazy man. Good job.
Ah, DK finally gets to the government price-regulation argument, I was wrong. He brings of North Korea, which has terrible conditions thanks to "Devaluing currency". He also points out the crucial backing DDD needs--what's the incentive for the government to give money to the people? (Good point).
DK also notes that socialism is not dominant and thus "it is not good" (but this makes so many assumptions I will just skip this unless DDD fails to address this).
DK makes connection that all communists are socialists. We'll see if this generalization is true or not.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 3
DDD breaks up the capitalism argument and then states that greed fits capitalism due to its value (but this argument is a bit confusing), and then draws out his previous "inhuman and truly horrible things" argument.
DDD highlights that "capitalism has no mercy" which may be true, however once again he shows the basic flaw of communism through that even non-working people may get money. We'll see if DK grasps onto this or not.
DDD also repeats that with governmental control of the industry 7,500$ would be enough. DK didn't address that but we'll just see.
DDD notes DK's texas-sharpshooter fallacy [WHAT DID I TELL YOU] and then confuses us all by claiming DK was special-pleading from socialist to communist. We'll see if DK can refute this.
DDD also notes that "people are manipulating someone's personal emotions for personal gain", a little inferred bit to refute that socialist government gives people little free will.
DDD finally concludes AGAIN with his poverty argument and states that socialism at least gives a chance to come back.......
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 2
DK begins his attack.
He suggests that the wealth would be seized by the wealth, as shown by the USSR... but once again, Texas-sharpshooter fallacy. We'll see if DDD will say the same.
DK begins dumbing down DDD with the same exact argument, using government corruption to counter that socialism could not fix the low-wage problem.
DK states that people should help themselves before the family, but does not address that the people who needed the product most did not get the product..... until later. He noted that the cheaper company saved the day; further supported by the extremely rich people willing to give away their fortunes for the greater good.
But DK also asks a circular question... "Would you prefer to have a system with lots of good and some bad, or a system that only has bad?" (already supposing that Communism was ONLY bad....a very risky move)
DK then brings up a new point supporting democracy and says socialism is totalitarian. It also makes sense because people have more free will compared to the absolute control of the government, especially in the freedom of speech.
DK finally concludes with his final argument that people would be able to produce more quickly [this makes sense because the people disperse more quickly than the socialist government]
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
RFD part 1
So here we go, the mighty DDD versus the unbeatable DK. Let's go.
DK sez he play devil's so dis should be interesting.
His arguments:
1. Capitalism more realistic--supports with human's greed and selfishness being natural. Also has saying that redistribution can't work (this is somehow logical since he notes people can't live on that little amount of money)
2. Capitalism works more. Supports this with US [Uh oh, seeing some texas-sharpshooter fallacy here]. Notes the key point that "In the socialist state of the USSR, they simply could not keep up with the production of the capitalist west", and also points out that even China is not socialist. [But does that necessarily make capitalism better? We can't conclude that.]

DDD answers with the following:
1. People aren't equal. Supports with the majority of population being poor and unable to support themselves, with only minority being super rich. Contrasts the "under 10,000$" in capitalism with 7,500$ in capitalism, with government owning industries and lowering prices.
2. Speaks of money as motivation, but less of helping, which is logical. However he only helps DK more since he explicitly states that no one would be sac'ing or saving lives for money.... meaning that nobody would try to earn what they want. As I like to say, "Work super hard get 1$, barely work get 1$....why would I want to work hard?"
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
@Jimmy
And obviously you cannot come up with a rebuttal.
Posted by JimmyBoJangles 1 year ago
JimmyBoJangles
You are obviously clueless to the world around you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
DarthKironesdynamicduodebatersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: in comments